View Full Version : Count as... Is it a problem?

Warsmith Tharak
23-04-2010, 11:15
I play chaos (and orks and daemons), but I am thinking to expand my chaos army. Instead of adding new units from the chaos dex, I wondering about using possessed with wings as sangurion guard, or hell cannon as tunderfire cannon(just two examples). In other words I plan to one game say "I use the space marine codex" and pull out a legal army from the dex but use chaos models instead and chaosyfied land speeders, hellcannon, possessed with wings as vanguard, assulte chaos terminators.
The next battle I will informe my opponent that I play space wolf with abbadon as Logan etc etc

This is not because I am a WAAC player, but that every marine flavor gives a different playing experiense. I do not care about winning or loosing, (after all I play with spawns) so this is not an "new shiny codex" syndrom, it is more of a "I have 20000 pts chaos army, and want to expande to 40000 pts with different things" syndrome.

Would you have a problem with it? why? why not?

23-04-2010, 11:23
It's fine. We all get bored with what we're playing at one point, and want a change, so it's perfectly understandable that instead of buying an entire new army you'll want to do a bit of count as-ing.

23-04-2010, 11:26
if you were a regular opponent of mine i wouldnt mind a couple of times if you were thinking of changing armies but in the long run i think id get annoyed because i am so pedantic with my army

23-04-2010, 11:43
Doing it now and then for varity fine long run could end up annoying the hell out of people. As they'll never have any idea which book your army will take the form of next.

Warsmith Tharak
23-04-2010, 11:54
What I am thinking is that when I play "Blood angles", and want to field a baal pred, I field a baal pred with spikes. If I want a drop pod army, I field a dread claw army using normal codex space marine rules. Tunder hammer/storm shild terminators? I bye world eater terminator upgrade from forge world and 2 bokses of assult terminators.

I wont plop down a cardboard box and say "drop pod", or put down a predator with lascannons and say "baal predator".

In my mind it is the same as having a blue vulkan, or a pink Lysander.

It will look like a chaos army, but play like a loyal army.

23-04-2010, 11:57
The only problem with counts as to me is when somone has all Thunder hammers in their army and wants to say they are power fists...

Or have all thunder hammers and want to count them as power weapons.

Urban Shaman Commando
23-04-2010, 12:01
I'm OK with count-as as far as it isn't too confusing. I've proxyed units, people whom I play against have proxyed units, as long as everyone know what is on the field it's perfectly OK.

23-04-2010, 12:10
And if your plan is to create an entire army using these proxy'd models, it's fine.

I have an Araby army purchased, painted and built for Warhammer Fantasy. I still don't know what army book or rules I'm going to use, but I guarantee they'll be 'counts as'. ;)

The Marshel
23-04-2010, 12:28
most reasonable opponents would agree. the ones who dont probably aren't the kinda guys you would want to be laying anyway

Warsmith Tharak
23-04-2010, 12:52
I have around 20000 pts painted chaos, and I am running out of options...I have painted dublikates of everything in the codex, and own most of what forge world have to offer a chaos player.

But I am not satisfied. I want more. But I dont want to paint 10 more possessed just to own 10 more possessed. I have 30... I want to give the last 10 wings and "flamer arms" and say: sangurian guard.

I want to expand my chaos army, but I want to be able to play it differently. I want chaoswing an all terminator army(abbadon as logan and chaos terminators with the right eqitment as wolf guard), or an all jump pack army. (Model a cool looking model as dante, 10 possessed with wings as sanguarian guard, 20 raptors as assult marine, a dreadnought with balrog wings as libby dread)

And when I play apoc the Grand Company look like a singel force.

@memnos: WoC? magic carpet riding magician as disk rider, elephant as shagott, standard troops as maruders, just stay away from most of the chaos armour armed troops and WAAC opponents and I think you will do fine...

23-04-2010, 13:19
seems fine to me.

In fact Night Lords BA and "loganized" Black Legion make perfect sense too me.

Hell I'd even cop Iron Warriors Tech Priest spam from codex smurphs!

23-04-2010, 13:39
Your plans sound fine, OP - everything looks like it's going to be obvious and you're going to make the effort to explain anything that isn't obvious. That's the way Counts As should work.

The Illusionist
23-04-2010, 13:50
I likes it, no problems with the plan ir!

Warsmith Tharak
23-04-2010, 14:01
Thank you all. I have spoken to my friends before I posted this, but I just wanted a general oppinion and what I can expect from people who I play a pick up game with...

23-04-2010, 14:04
I'm all for counts-as, but sometime struggle with proxies as you can forget what things are when calculating your moves.

Yes there is a difference.
Using a Balrog model for counts-as Bloodthirster is not easy to forget what it is as a Balrog doesn't normally exist in-game AND looks the part.
Using a Sentinel as a Deff Dread can easily confuse a tired mind, as it does exist as a unit within the game.

23-04-2010, 17:17
Sounds fine to me. Bonus if your army looks cool. Honestly I don't care if you played with the Necron codex, or the Tau codex and plopped down Chaos models, so long as you aren't looking to gain undeserved advantage from base sizes or model profiles for los / cover, and you tell me what each model has before and any time I ask again during the game, I'm cool with it. Just don't try to switch up what a unit has mid game or do anything shady, and I'm happy to play whatever you bring in whatever list you make from whatever codex, so long as that codex is current, and the list is legal from that single codex since they are internally balanced and the models are relatively the same size as what they were supposed to be.

23-04-2010, 17:19
No its fine!
Count as armies usually have more thought and theme and that makes it much more fun!

23-04-2010, 17:27
Sure go ahead, and I like the idea myself. I imagine just because one force is say Blood angels it won't always be assault orientated or have their specialist units so using another codex gives a different feel - maybe from the teachings of a captain more tactical than fierce.

My biggest problem is wanting to start painting Aurora Chapter of Imperial Fists just because I'm getting fed up of painting red!

23-04-2010, 17:57
That's exactly what I do with my Iron Warriors. If I'm running a defensive army, I'll run them as Codex Marines, with some Deads, Thunderfires, and a Command Squad as some Chosen. Or, if I'm feeling like I want to be on the attack, I'll break out the Blood Angels rules and break out the Predators. Of course, when I want to used my Dark Mech, Traitor Gaurd, and Demons along side my Marines, the Wolf book fits perfectly for that.

And there's always the Chaos book to fall back on if I've had a brain aneurism or something along those lines...

In other words, it's a great idea, but a lot of work to get your models up to WYSIWYG across 3 different books. I've got a lot of models that are painted up but that I don't use.

24-04-2010, 16:59
As long as everyone is clear on what everything is and the codex the rules you're using are from, hell, why not? Nice to see a bit of imagination going on :).

I find the same thing for models and units that technically no longer have a purpose. For example, I have some Juggernaught-mounted Chaos Champions that are pretty much never going to hit the table as such. A bit of conversion work on them, and I figure I might have me a bunch of serviceable, and considerably sturdier, Blood Slaughterers...

24-04-2010, 19:12
I suppose it would be fine if you helped me remember what thing were. Even better, take some pictures of your units and put them in your armylist, along with stats, and I could look them up myself!

24-04-2010, 19:18
The only problem with counts as to me is when somone has all Thunder hammers in their army and wants to say they are power fists...

Or have all thunder hammers and want to count them as power weapons.

How is that an issue? There is a fine level of consistency there that you do not see in all "counts as" attempts. So long as there are no actual TH's in the army then there is simply no issue.

Your post smells of a personal beef with a player. There is a guy round here who uses a CSM army called "The Hammer Lords". I think you can guess what their signature weapon is. All of the PF's are massive 2 handed sledgehammer type weapons whereas the PW's are all smaller ones.
I have no problem with this as EVERY PF is a big 2 handed hammer and every PW is a small 1 handed hammer. There is not a single standard PF/PW in the army so consistency is not broken, thus making everyone happy. ;)

24-04-2010, 20:19
I wont plop down a cardboard box and say "drop pod", or put down a predator with lascannons and say "baal predator".

That's proxying, not counts as.

24-04-2010, 20:22
i once went to a uni gaming club and all the lad had was bits of cardboard with numbers on it and an army list that corresponded to the numbers and this was well accepted

never returned there again

Repentant Son
24-04-2010, 21:37
I personally wouldn't care, considering I'm doing the same thing. I didn't even need to ask permission... :p

Seriously though, the Chaos Codex is competitive as is. I don't think that using a different codex is too much of a gain to deny a bored player.

24-04-2010, 21:49
i once went to a uni gaming club and all the lad had was bits of cardboard with numbers on it and an army list that corresponded to the numbers and this was well accepted

never returned there again

To repeat

That's proxying, not counts as.

24-04-2010, 22:00
I like to be able to make tactical decisions at a glance.

Units that aren't Wysiwyg gives a significant advantage to my opponent.

At smaller games this isn't a problem but in larger games it's important to quickly be able to judge what threat an enemy unit poses.

24-04-2010, 23:20
I think it's a good idea and totally fine. Do it!

03-05-2010, 13:30
Hi all,

I wanted to start a new thread about a 'count as' I would like to do but this threads allready covers the subject so I will post my question here.

I'm having this idea of doing an all biker CSM force with just some minimal troops thrown in. Instead of using the normal CSM bikers I would like to use the Juggernaut lord or the bloodcrusher models. The models would be converted with CSM's riding on top of them.

The idea behind the conversions is an all juggernaut-mounted Chaos warband. Now I know that this is a free world and all but I just wanted some opinions on the subject:

- Would you let me field chaos bikes using juggernaut models?
- Is it appropriate to mount them on the 60mm bases without cheating (blasts cover less models, multiple charges,..)?
- Should the unit be able to carry an icon that isn't the icon of Khorne?

I know that, if I ever begin this project, it will be very expensive and time consuming but the idea of all those juggernaut mounted CSM really appeals to me.

Thanks for reading!

Warsmith Tharak
03-05-2010, 13:36
I have some of the same plans, but they will be count as tunderwolf cavalery. I would not have a problem with it, but the base issue is a problem.

03-05-2010, 13:55
If you're going to do something like this you should at least purchase the codex for each army you're going to swap to.

03-05-2010, 14:09

I feel in 40k one should start inventing a different vocabulary for

a) simply cross-dressing Marines that do WYSIWYG almost perfectly
b) "true" counts-as (i.e. Eldar on Nid-rules or whatever..)

03-05-2010, 14:35
As a rule, it's fine in friendly matches - so long as everything is made clear to your opponent before the battle, the better to avoid the shouty-shouty-pointy-stick-look-at-my-codex-banging-table-model-death end result.

For Ard Boys, tournaments and almost anything in-store. No. you don;t want to try this with some people - those geeks will KILL you.

03-05-2010, 14:45
I like to be able to make tactical decisions at a glance.

Units that aren't Wysiwyg gives a significant advantage to my opponent.

At smaller games this isn't a problem but in larger games it's important to quickly be able to judge what threat an enemy unit poses.
This would sum up my views as well. It's also the reason that I actually prefer proxies over "counts-as" when you're going to do this kind of thing. If it's a proxy, I don't get confused, because I _must_ mentally decipher what it's standing in for. Your squad of terminators with thunder hammers that are actually powerfists... that's liable to misinterpretation quite easily, especially if they've always been played as they're modeled.

That said, be it proxying or "counts-as", I would refrain from making a consistent habit of it, because it almost certainly will start be annoying sooner or later. It may be more fun for you, but your opponents will find it less fun to constantly second-guess what your units are.

03-05-2010, 16:39
These questions are coming up a lot now, and some people seem to be going crazy over it. Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference, but I'l chip in my own opinions on it.

There is a difference between "counts as" and "proxying". When you proxy a model, it means you take some sort of object and use it to stand in for a particular unit. This may be a coke can for a carnifex, a VHS tape for a tank, or even one model for another ("This sergeant actually has a power fist"). Counts-as is a type of themed modeling conversion where one miniature forever substitutes for another.

Proxying is okay, with opponent's permission. Everything should be made abundantly clear to your opponent. You do not want your opponent to become confused or feel cheated ("Wait a minute, that's a meltagun and not a flamer?" "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you..."). Proxying is normally used for trying out new weapon combinations, or to see if a new tank is all it's cracked up to be. It is best if proxying is a temporary thing.

Counts-as is different. Counts as is using one type of model, specially converted and with specific intent, to represent another. It is not proxying because it is the final intended outcome. Those orks riding on boars are counts-as ork bikers. They aren't ever going to be replaced by the real models, because they are the final product. Counts-as should be clear, easy to understand, and with a strong theme to support it. You are asking your opponent to remember a lot more than a simple proxy job. That said, counts-as, when done correctly, should always be acceptable, and should not require express opponents' permission (anymore than the regular permission you give when you play any game).

Your themed Raven Guard all jump pack army, using a counts-as Blood Angel list is okay. Your khorne worshipper army with counts-as Space Wolves is okay. Make sure everyone is modeled properly, inform your opponent of the changes, and you are perfectly fine. You are effectively using Space Wolves with a red paint job, which is not against the rules.

Now, you will get into some situations that are not so clear. A chaos biker list with all juggernauts? I don't see a problem, except that the Chaos Lord entry has the option for a juggernaut. So if your lord is placed on a juggernaut model, is it a bike, or a juggernaut? Something should be done to make it clear to the opponent.

Some people have issues with the size of the base on certain models. I do not. The reason for the base size rule is because of abuses that occurred during 4th edition. People would mount characters on unusually large bases, have them hop out of vehicles, and be in charge range due to the exceptionally large base size. When your Dark Eldar lord jumps out of his raider, and you plonk down some figure on a 10" long oval base (it's for scenery... honest), with one end barely sitting within 2" of the vehicle, you can see how people might complain. I don't have a problem with any official GW sized bases, no matter what. Mount your marines on trygon bases if you feel like it. Won't bother me. They just had to come up with some official rule, and the "use the one they came with" ended up being the one they chose. For counts-as, however, the hard and fast nature of the base size rule is shown to be a total judgment call. Do your khorne juggy-bikers use juggernaut bases, or bike bases? Two different anal-retentive players could have two different opinions (or even one anal-retentive player could have two different opinions, each one the exact opposite of whichever you chose). Yes, different base sizes will have different effects on the game, be it multiple unit charges, blast template effects, or whatever. However, those effects are generally unpredictable, and vary from game to game. Yes, a larger base might mean fewer models will be hit by a blast template, but it also might mean more get hit because the models get squeezed together as they are going through terrain. Larger bases make less maneuverable guys. You might be able to assault more people in hand to hand, but you also might be able to assault fewer depending on how the terrain is positioned. As long as it is not something that is obviously designed with the intention of cheating, I do not have a problem with it.

03-05-2010, 17:09
Thanks for all the replies guys!

Maybe I should try to model the juggernauts on a smaller base then? Because converting the model to represent a bike does not seems to be the problem. But I can imagine that the large base will be...

03-05-2010, 17:29
most reasonable opponents would agree. the ones who dont probably aren't the kinda guys you would want to be laying anyway
*Crosses fingers that this is a mistype* :p

On subject, I say go for it. I do the same sort of thing and I think I've had one person complain in maybe 3 years. Only thing that might be a help is if you say what the army is first before you turn up for a game, or else it might cause a problem.

03-05-2010, 19:29
Proxying is IMO a problem, especially in mass... Such as Proxying a Guard army for Daemon, or vice versa. 'Counts-As' is perfectly fine, so long as you let your opponent know. I run a 'Counts-As' Wazzdakka, represented by a Big-Mek on a bike that's armed with Autocannons, and I run 'Looted Lemun Russ' models as Battlewagons with appropriate weaponry load out. Indeed, most of my Deathskull 'eavy weaponry comes from other races, so I always inform my opponents that if it looks like a multi-shot gun from whatever race, it's a Big-Shoota (i.e. Burst Cannon, Heavy Bolter, Scatter Laser); while Rokkits are represented by things like Missile Launchers, Bright Lances, and Multimeltas.

So long as your 'Counts-As' isn't confusing, most players are fine with it.

Alaric Stormblade
03-05-2010, 20:28
In my opinion proxying is a big no-go.

Counts as, especially for conversion armies or armies without own rules (Mechanicus and so on), is all right to me. They still have to be WYSIWYG (at least to some point). Your opponent should know any time what exactly he's facing, so explaining the units during deployment will help. For example my Mechanicus army is a counts as Daemonhunters force and apart from the old rules this works quite fine.